Fraudulent referendum

Totally agree with you quizqueen, particularly after watching last weeks Question Time, when it was made quite clear by an Irish MP whose constituency was on the border that no backstop would EVER be put into place by anyone under any circumstances. As you say, a blown up contrived problem, designed to keep us tied to the EU for ever!

I find it seriously worrying Jura 2 that you are still trying to suggest that the vote of the majority should be overturned. There is another name for that and it isn't democracy.

I find it frustrating, Grankind that people are either ignoring, or don't care, that the referendum result was deeply tainted by fraud, illegality and cheating. That is, in itself, most undemocratic when an essential feature of democracy should be fairness and openness in campaigning. I'm afraid that cries of 'overturning the vote would be undemocratic' don't impress me if the 'vote' was obtained by undemocratic means.

The fraudulence of the referendum not only taints the result (and, I'll remind you again, would have led to the vote being declared void had the result been legally binding) but it also has dreadful implications for any future election campaign. If the cheats and liars and placers of dark adverts to targeted recipients (using illegally gained data) get away with it we will never have free and fair elections again. Truly the death of democracy.

I agree that we cannot have a border between NI and SI - but I also see clearly that the EU cannot allow a border between EU and non-EU to be opened. Looking at it selfishly, and not from EU pov - it means that it will become the border with massive illegal immigration, drugs, unchecked meat products and live imports, etc, etc, etc. Surely anyone can see that.

Could you please tell us how and when we will be voting for the very powerful bureaucrats from the WTO, please.

Do you know who your MEP is Quizqueen? I don't.
Ginny 42 - I don't have a specialist knowledge- not that it's anything to do with the discussion- but I do travel and I talk to people in those countries in the EU. The examples 'I cite' are very much to do with what is happening in the world. All the European countries, which still includes us at this moment, are suffering the same problems. European countries are under the umbrella of the EU. It isn't working for us or them and we need to move on. It is only the nay sayers and the doom mongers in this country who have brought us to this point where our government is on its knees and is a laughing stock. I really resent those people who are still banging on about a second referendum. We have done all that. There is nothing to be gained by back pedalling and it won't happen now anyway. We have failed to invest money in our own country because it is being spent elsewhere e.g to stay in the EU. If you can't work that one out you need help. If you want further information about Europe I can recommend going to RFI - a French news station where you can listen/ read/ translate all the latest news. It might be an eye opener for some.

If you don't know who your MEP is, and if you didn't vote for him/her- that is not the fault of the EU, is it?

BTW you forgot to give information about when and how we will be voting for those in charge of WTO.

Or your views about how the border between Ireland and NI might be used in the future if there is no border? It would be nice to know.

This is the last time I am going to say that I was not brainwashed by the Leave campaign and there are many more people like me in this country. We won the vote!!!
You are wittering on and on and on and trying to trip up anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, but I am not convinced you are sincere. Why don't you try putting all your energies into making the best of whatever the outcome will be? Another person who has constantly objected, voted against and complained about absolutely everything, is Jeremy Corbyn. And so far he hasn't come up with any good suggesstions either. People in this country are not stupid. But you seem to think they are and you don't convince me at all.

I am not asking you to be convinced. Proven fraud of that magnitude is unheard of and fact.

I have asked 2 questions- which you somehow to not wish to answer.

So little changes … This forum needs a "straw man" stamp to go over every argument brought up when evidence for the "leave" fraudulence is offered. I haven't seen any on this thread that isn't an attempt at distraction.

This was a point repeated from way back when too.

"If Remain had won, as I expected it would, like you I would have accepted defeat with disappointment but with grace. Why oh why couldn't Remain do the same?!

That's a bit like saying "if you won the lottery but none of the money was coming from me I would accept it. Why, when I win the lottery, by taking much that you have, don't you do the same?".

One "win" means the status quo remains for all - something we know, that has supported our economy, and through which we have evidence our companies can work. The other is unknown. It may not be the devastation some have predicted but we are more certain than ever now that it will not be the economic miracle promised by the Brexiteers. In one case the cost is nothing to the "losers", in the other it could be a great deal. I'm afraid I can't remember who wrote the original question … this time ... but whoever it was is comparing apples with pears.

I seem to have missed what your questions are really.
But you don't seem to have answered mine either.
E.g. How can it be proved that the majority of people in this country who voted to leave were unduly influenced by someone spending more money on leaflets than someone else?

Grankind Of course it can't be proved. But one of the bases on which our democracy is built is that we should have regulation of the electoral process. In the past votes could be bought and corrupt practices were commonplace. The Electoral Commision is there to ensure proper regulation and one of those regulations is about spending. So ignore this infringement and you are basically chipping away at the foundations of democracy. Something which only seems important to Leavers when it provides the result they want.

There is no proof available, of course. But anyone who has worked or studied marketing, will know just how easy to influence people's choices. Businesses would not spend billions every year if it did not work, would they? And neither would Banks, or anyone behind the Leave campaign. They illegally spent massive amounts of money to target people secretly and illegally. The Fraud is fact- and much of it not come out yet.

And another FACT is that it is illegal, and anitdemocratic- and would have resulted in the Electoral Commission cancelling the results- had the Referendum not been, as clearly stated in our Sovereign Law- ADVISORY (not shouting, just highlighting here, as it is important).

Had the results been a 20 % or more majority- or even 10% - the illegality would still be fact, but not so important. But with 4% - it is very significant and could have made all the difference.

And the main point re the fraud is not about a few 'leaflets' here or there- but illegal targetting, behind closed doors (internet) of specific groups which were considered more likely to be influenced, after very careful internal market research.

It wasn't a question of ’spending more money on leaflets'. You're just trying to minimise the argument to make our concerns look foolish. It was a case of breaking electoral law to the extent that the culprits have been referred to the police. It was also a case of using fraudulently obtained personal data for targeting advertising containing lies and misinformation, that none but the recipients would see. If Leavers can't acknowledge how this subverts democratic processes then they clearly have very little interest in democracy.

If you think that 'spending more on leaflets' had no effect on the vote perhaps you could tell me why companies spend £millions on advertising every year?

As a leave voter I am still appalled by the irregularities in the leave campaign. Fortunately I was not on social media during the run up to the referendum so I was not one of those "targeted"

I sincerely hope that this has been sorted before the next GE, Local Elections and European Parliament Elections.

Thank you GG13 for acknowledging the FRaud and targeting. However we voted in the Referendum- and whatever happens next- we must ensure this never happens again- as it would destroy Democracy- and not just in the UK.

You are clutching at straws and remind me of the bullies in the playground who gang up together when things don't go their way. Accusing me of not being democratic is pathetic. Your comments are so closely reflecting those of the buffoons in Parliament who shout each other down at every opportunity, that it is almost laughable.
However, time will tell whether it was a wise decision to leave Europe because we are not the only country who wants to leave. Unfortunately, those other countries are looking on aghast at the in fighting that is going on in ours, which again, is reflected on this site. I am a democrat, and will not cave in to people who refuse to move on. My vote is equal to yours. And by the way, how many of you have actually written to your MP and expressed these opinions? Very few I suspect. I have written to mine. I love Europe - in fact my mother came from a European country, but the federation that is now the EU is not the same as the Common Market which we joined all those years ago. We need to take back control of our country. Sadly, the de-railers who have tried to sabotage the referendum decision have now spoilt any chance of us leaving in a dignified fashion. And I think they will have cause to regret that later. Voting to leave the EU does not mean that people don't envisage a future where we still have a good working relationship with Europe. I am still hoping that we can do that, but hope is fading fast because of remainers who coudn't accept the result of the referendum.
I haven't got any more to say, but I sincerely hope you all find some sort of acceptance, otherwise you will have a very troubled old age.

Grankind, your arrogance is insufferable.

Why is speaking your mind arrogance? People on here do it all the time!

Jabberwok I could take issue with a number of points in Grankinds's riposte to me upthread, but it is the following which I find offensive.

We have failed to invest money in our own country because it is being spent elsewhere, e.g. to stay in the EU. If you can't understand that you need help. How would you interpret that final sentence Jabberwok had it been addressed to you?

I would never write such a comment to anyone, on GN or elsewhere. It was unjust and arrogant to presume she possesses a higher intellect than I. As you so rightly point out, there's nothing wrong with speaking one's mind.

You're right, it was rude, but tbh, people have said a lot worse on here, challenging and bullying other posters to the point of abuse, really awful! So this particular comment is fairly mild by comparison!!! but even so does merit an apology, hopefully!!?

Grankind

Had the EU referendum been legally binding and voided because of the serious illegality of some of the Leave campaigns would you still be saying that to overturn the vote would be undemocratic?

Replies on this thread and on the latest Boris Johnson thread show a worrying degree of tolerance of cheating and lying...

Quite apart from the lies, cheating, foreign interference, overspending, covert use of social media and other illegalities, the 17.4 million who voted for brexit is only 37% of the electorate.

▪ Just 37% of the electorate were allowed to impose Brexit on Britain. And yet, only 37% of the members of UKIP, or the Labour or Tory parties, wouldn’t be sufficient to change their constitutions.

▪ Under UK law, just 37% of a trade union’s members wouldn’t be sufficient to call a strike.

▪ Just 37% of MPs wouldn’t be sufficient to call for an early general election (two-thirds of all MPs are required for that).

In democratic countries that hold referendums on important issues, a super majority would usually be required to effect major change. A result of 52%-48% wouldn’t cut it. Nor would only 37% of the electorate voting for change enable that change to take place.

The majority of voters either voted for Remain or didn’t vote. In most democratic countries that hold referendums, those who don’t vote do count – they count as a vote for the status quo. Otherwise it would mean a minority dictating the future of a country.

A link- what do those slogans really mean? :

www.facebook.com/777832385/videos/10157345638012386/

Some people just love to manipulate figures to reflect their fanatically held views.

One vote from a convicted tagged Labour MP decided the no deal senario, you couldn't make it up.

Im not sure why you are saying it was her vote that swung it, you could pick out any of the ayes and say it was "that person's vote", If she'd been replaced in a bye-election, whose to say her replacement wouldn't have vote in the same way?
Those with criminal records are allowed to vote btw.